captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> woodruff: there was good news in the october jobs report: a surprise spike in hiring despite the political impasse that shut down the government for half of the month. good evening. i'm judy woodruff. also ahead on the program: the superstorm that pummeled the philippines was among the strongest on record. it forced hundreds of thousands to flee and cut off communication with parts of the country. and it's friday. mark shields and david brooks are here to analyze the week's news. those are just some of the stories we're covering on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs

newshour has been provided by: >> my customers can shop around; see who does good work and compare costs. it can also work that way with healthcare. with united healthcare, i get information on quality ratings of doctors, treatment options and estimates for how much i'll pay. that helps me and my guys make informed decisions. i don't like guesses with my business and definitely not with our health. that's health in numbers. united healthcare. >> bnsf railway.

>> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> woodruff: the u.s. economy turned in surprisingly strong jobs numbers for october. the labor department reported today that employers added 204,000 positions despite the partial government shutdown. at the same time, the unemployment rate ticked up a tenth to 7.3%. paul solman will have more on the numbers and what they mean right after the news summary. wall street shot higher on the jobs report, led by bank stocks. the dow jones industrial average gained more than 167 points to

close well over 15,761, another record high. the nasdaq rose nearly 62 points to close at 3,919. for the week, the dow gained nearly 1%, the nasdaq fell 0.1%. the head of the international monetary fund says the global economic recovery still isn't strong enough. it agreed to pay a record $1.8 billion in dispiens forfeitures to settle charges it allowed insider trading. the company formally entered the plea in court in new york. the head of the international monetary fund says the global economic recovery still isn't strong enough. christine lagarde spoke today in paris after addressing leaders of world financial organizations. >> i was able to discuss the change of the growth dynamics we see at the moment, to

acknowledge the fact recovery is under way, but unfortunately at too slow a rhythm to actually create the jobs that are needed around the world. >> woodruff: the paris meeting came as standard and poor's downgraded france's credit rating by one notch. the agency said the french government's economic reforms to date are unlikely to boost growth substantially. the central philippines began counting the costs today of one of the strongest storms on record. the super typhoon blasted across a series of islands. it struck with winds of near 150 miles an hour and gusts up to 170. four people were confirmed dead. at least 750,000 fled before the storm arrived. we'll have more on this in a few minutes. secretary of state john kerry has joined the nuclear talks in geneva, but he says "there is not an agreement" yet. instead, kerry acknowledged today that there are several key obstacles to be overcome before a short-term deal is done. we'll hear more about the talks a little later.

the chief palestinian investigator in the death of yasser arafat declared today that israel is the only suspect. arafat died in 2004. swiss scientists concluded this week he was probably poisoned by radioactive polonium-210. a russian report today agreed that poison was involved but said the findings on polonium were inconclusive. the palestinian investigator said either way there's no doubt who did it. >> ( translated ): it is not important that i say here that he was killed by polonium or any other thing. but i say, as the investigating committee, with all the security and medical defails available we have about yasser arafat's death that he was killed and israel killed him upon >> woodruff: israeli officials have repeatedly denied any role in arafat's death. they say he was already politically isolated, so there was no reason to kill him.

today, a foreign ministry spokesman said it again. >> let me say this as simply and as clearly as i can-- israel did not kill arafat, period. it's as simple as that. we have nothing to do with this. and the palestinians should stop leveling all these baseless accusations without the slightest shadow of proof. enough is enough. >> woodruff: the palestinians plan to continue their investigation, and arafat's widow has called for international action. the united states and russia now expect to miss a deadline for destroying all of syria's chemical weapons by mid-2014. the reuters news service reported today that a draft timeline shows the real date will likely be closer to the end of next year. the document still calls for all toxic agents to be removed from syria by the end of this year, and for chemical facilities to be destroyed by march 2014. a campaign to vaccinate 20 million children against polio is under way in the middle east,

after an outbreak in syria. the united nations said today they are working in syria, in refugee camps like this one in lebanon, and in other neighboring countries. >> the vaccination is across the country, so it's in the settlement, as the one that you'll see here. and it's in nonpublic health facilities, all shelter, and then door to door. all the children, irrespective of nationality are vaccinated. >> woodruff: children are especially vulnerable to contracting and spreading polio. the vaccinations will be administered over the next six months. the obama administration issued sweeping new rules today to expand mental health care coverage. the regulations mandate that health insurers cover mental illness and addiction the same as they would a physical ailment. we'll delve into the new rules later in the program. the white house promised help

today for americans whose health insurance policies have been canceled. a spokesman said that officials are looking at administrative solutions. president obama apologized yesterday for the cancellations. he had given assurances that people could keep existing coverage. meanwhile, jeff zients, the man tasked with fixing the healthcare.gov web site, said today that it is making progress but still has a long way to go. still ahead on the newshour: the surprising spike in october's jobs numbers; the latest on the massive typhoon that struck the philippines; iran sits down with the west to hammer out a deal on nuclear arms; new rules requiring mental illness to be covered like any other health problem. plus, we dig in to the election results in virginia in a search for national voting trends, and we analyze the week's news with shields and brooks.

>> woodruff: this month's jobs report was the first one since the government shutdown that captured some of its wider impact. it also came one day after a government report found stronger than expected growth in the u.s. economy just before the shutdown. newshour economics correspondent paul solman puts some perspective on the latest data, part of his ongoing coverage on "making sense" of financial news. >> reporter: it was a tale of two jobs reports. employers added 204,000 jobs in october, yet the unemployment rate rose to 7.3%. how could both happen? well, first, unemployment is based on a survey of households; the jobs number, on a separate sample of employers, the so- called establishment survey. >> the fact that the data come from two different surveys means that it's natural that from time to time you are going to see them telling different stories.

>> reporter: and surveys, of course, have margins of error. so, any conclusion? we asked michael strain of the conservative american enterprise institute. >> there is a tepid recovery; we are adding jobs, but we're not adding enough jobs. the unemployment rate is doing okay, but it's not falling nearly fast enough. and we have a lot of work left to do before the labor market is healed. >> reporter: dean baker is-- if you'll pardon us-- top dog at the left-leaning center for economic and policy research. never trust any one month's numbers, he says, but, while not the best of times, october certainly wasn't the worst. in fact... >> over 200,000 jobs being created in october, which is more than i expected, more than most economists expected and upward revisions for the prior two months. so we're averaging over 200,000 the past three months, which is better than what we're seeing. >> reporter: actually, the 16- day shutdown delayed the jobs report by a week, which, strain

says, warped the final numbers. the collection usually begins immediately thereafter. in this case the government was shut down so collection efforts were delayed by a week. so you're asking households to remember what they were doing two weeks ago as opposed to remember one week ago. and while that may seem like a minor change to a lot of people, evidence shows that changes like that can actually have a big impact on the quality of the data. >> end the shutdown! >> reporter: what's more, explains baker, temporarily furloughed federal workers were counted as unemployed in the household survey since technically, they weren't working. that hurt the unemployment rate. >> so the household survey showed a drop in employment, in government employment, of about 450,000. so, these are people that were employed by the federal government, presuming mostly employed by the federal

government. they're on furlough, they're asked, "were you working the week of the 12th," answered no. >> reporter: but when it came to the establishment survey, government agencies reported these workers did have jobs. regardless, the private sector added far more jobs than expected. >> i was actually surprised, hard pressed to find any evidence of the shutdown. i was looking at places like restaurants, hotels. i was expecting that you had areas... the national parks were closed. here in d.c., a lot of the tourist sites. people... if you were planning a trip to d.c., people would have canceled. so, i would have expected that there would be some fall off there. in fact, there was very rapid growth-- 50,000 jobs in that amusement/entertainment sector. so, you're really hard pressed to find the evidence of the shutdown in the establishment survey. ( applause ) >> reporter: during a speech today at the port of new orleans, president obama offered

his own framing of the report. >> we added about 200,000 new jobs last month. but there is no question that the shutdown harmed our jobs market. the unemployment rate still ticked up, and we don't yet know all the data for this... this final quarter of the year. but it could be down because of what happened in washington. >> reporter: the white house's estimate of the shutdown's cost: more than $2 billion in back pay and lots of lost productivity. and, says michael strain, the shutdown means the data are even less certain than usual. >> but i would expect that next month's to be much more reliable than this month's. >> reporter: the never-ending story will pick up again on december 6. >> woodruff: in the philippines, speed may have saved lives. the massive typhoon that ripped

across that country moved at about 25 miles per hour-- so fast, it decreased the impact of rain and landslides, which can be a major cause of deaths. we begin with a report narrated by angus walker of independent television news. >> reporter: with gusts of more than 230 miles an hour, super typhoon haiyan hit the philippines with massive force. houses torn apart, huge waves crashed into the coast. almost a million people forced to flee from one of the strongest storms ever recorded. there are reports of flash floods and landslides from many of the islands worst affected, but with power and communications severely disrupted, no one has an

entirely confident assessment of the damage so far. at least seven ships have sunk in rough seas. crew members from a barge forced to abandon their vessel were luckily spotted and rescued. this is the main operations center of the philippines red cross here in manila, and they're working through the night trying to assess the extent of the damage, and one of the worst affected provinces is completely cut off. do you think there are villages along the coast which have been completely destroyed? >> yes. i think so. i think there are... there are coastal areas that... you know, it's just like opening... hopefully nobody died there. >> reporter: 12 million people were living in the path of this huge typhoon, which measured around 120 miles across. mass evacuations in the days ahead of the storm making landfall in areas most at risk has undoubtedly saved lives,

but the death toll, mercifully low, is expected to rise. the philippines has been battered by more than 20 typhoons this year alone, but no one could have been prepared for such ferocity. >> woodruff: a short time ago, i spoke by telephone with rosemarie francisco, philippines bureau chief for the reuters news agency. rosemarie francisco, welcome. so the sun is just coming up there in the philippines. what is the latest on what you're hearing about the damage done by this storm? >> reporter: from the images, we saw a few hours ago, the first images, in the central philippines, we can see that the damage could be very severe. the images we saw were from the city centers, and major roads in

city centers were, like, filled with cluttered debris. >> woodruff: we are hearing that the casualty reports may be low at this point because the storm was moving so fast. are you hearing anything about that? >> reporter: authorities are saying that the communication lines are down, so they're not able to communicate with people on the ground quite well. so they don't know whether there are more casualties. but other officials are saying, because they were able to make preemptive evacuation quite early, even two days before the typhoon hit, that could have also been a factor in the low casualty count. but we will only know for sure when some of the communication

lines are restored. so today is going to be crucial. >> woodruff: rosemarie francisco, with reuters, reporting from manila, thank you. >> thank you, too. >> woodruff: despite a day of higher level negotiations, including secretary of state john kerry, an interim deal over iran's nuclear program still has not been reached. all sides are expected to meet again in the morning to try to clear remaining hurdles. jeffrey brown reports. >> brown: secretary kerry and foreign ministers from france, germany and britain arrived in geneva, saying they hope to narrow the gap with iran. but the secretary of state notably sought to lower expectations after a flurry of reports yesterday that a short- term deal was imminent. >> i want to emphasize there is not an agreement at this point in time. we hope to try to narrow those

differences, but i don't think anybody should mistake that there are some important gaps that have to be closed. >> brown: the iranian foreign minister, javad zarif, followed suit in striking a cautious note. >> ( translated ): we have now entered the very difficult and sensitive phase of editing the text that will be published, should the talks reach an agreement. it is possible that the negotiations will take more time. however, given the sensitivity of these discussions, we can see that the ministers are eager to participate, and we have to see what the results will bring. >> brown: the reported deal would suspend-- and, in some cases, reverse-- iranian nuclear activity for, perhaps, six months. in return, the islamic republic would receive moderate sanctions relief. in particular, iran wants oil and banking penalties eased, but israeli prime minister netanyahu bluntly dismissed the potential deal today. he and kerry had a reportedly

tense meeting in tel aviv before the secretary flew to geneva. shortly after that session, netanyahu derisively labeled the reports from geneva as the deal of the century for iran. >> it's a very bad deal. iran is not required to take apart even one centrifuge, but the international community is relieving sanctions on iran for the first time after many years. iran gets everything that it wanted at this stage and it pays nothing, and this is when iran is under severe pressure. >> brown: aboard "air force one" today, white house spokesman josh earnest told reporters that any critique is premature, and again he said the united states and israel are in complete agreement about the need to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. russia and china are also involved in the talks, and russian foreign minister sergey lavrov arrived in geneva late today.

>> this evening the white house said president obama called benjamin netanyahu and the u.s. remains committed preventing iran from obtang a nuclear weapon. we get two views, cliff kupchan is the middle east director at the uration group and reul gerecht. welcome to both of you. cliff kupchan, let me start with you, while we're waiting for the interim agreement the question is whether it would be a good first step. >> it would be a very good first step. the key goal for the u.s. and the west is to make it harder for iran to have a nuclear weapon. we're trying to limit their enrichment capability, their ability to enrich uranium, lengthen the amount of time for them to dash to a bomb, take steps to make the worst for occur and i think that could occur. >> you're more skeptical. >> we have to depend on the press reports and what officials

here suggested, but i don't think they're doing anything to dismantle the program. that's the real objective. and i'm highly skeptical if they don't go after such issues as the production of centrifuges, where cent rifortunatelies are manufactured, converting the iraq plutonium facility, the heavy water facility to a light water facility, to be honest about past weaponnization efforts, and also very importantly, getting a grip on their-- how they could abuse the system. i think the odds of this turning out well are very poor. >> brown: so those are the kind of things you think the u.s. should be demanding, and short of that no deal is better? >> i think it should be very, very clear that right now the united states is nay very strong-- relatively very strong position. if you start dismantling sanctions, our position is going to get weaker and weaker and weaker. >> brown: what about that? >> i think any deal with an

opponent is going to be an ugly deal. >> brown: you mean by definition. >> by definition. you don't get something you're really thrilled about when you're dealing with moarlsz an enemy. i think letting the good be the enemy of the perfect is a big, big, big danger here. i agree with mr. grect, the things he mentioned are very important part of any deal we're going to come to, but when you get to monitoring centrifuge production capability or uranium milling capability, the ability to make raw uranium-- that's the only thing we're going to get to in a final status agreement. i think try to front load that risks detonating what could be a very productive, initial, interim agreement. >> brown: let me follow up on the other thing he said, the notion if you make concessions now, even small ones, they're hard tore take back later on. >> it depends what the concessions are. what the administration is planning on doing is unfreezing

iranian sanction sanctions, and providing relief on pret rochemical and precious metals. so to me we're on the verge of what-- we're hopefully on the verge of what would be a very good deal for the united states. >> i would say first and foremost, if you do not have the means up front of verifying the-- where the iranians are doing their nuclear research, if you don't have an additional protocol, at the very beginning, you are depending upon the iranians to be honest, and they have lied and cheated ever since 2002, when we discovered their facility. i would say again on the sanctions, if you give them any type of cash benefit, what you're essentially doing is giving them hard cirns they they could turn back around and invest in the nuclear program, they could invest in supporting bashar al-assad from syria, they believed invest in supporting

the revolutionary guard corps. to give them any kind of hard currency i think is a serious mistake. >> brown: how do you see the position of the iranians now? part of this, of course, is how much can you trust what they say. >> i don't think this is about trust. nobody's going to trust iran. it is a fact that they-- >> brown: so the questions he was raising about earlier things, you don't worry about right now? >> this agreement can't be based on trust. it would be based on verification. one of the first things that the united states, the p5+1, is going to be looking for is an increased and very stringent inspection regime. but i do not think that looking for everything up front is going to work. i don't think we're going to be able to, again, get them to let us into their physics lab, their research institutes up front. i think it would be a big mistake to go for that. >> essentially, what you're saying is you're allowing them to determine the structure of these negotiations. if they say no, you stop. well, the united states shouldn't say no.

it should say, listen, we intend to ensure the dismantling of this program. all options are on the table. either you agree to these terms or in fact all options are there. we will increase sanctions, and we will also consider a preemptive military strike. you have to be willing to say to the iranians that this position is unacceptable. you have been to be abe and willing to say you must sign the additional protocol. we know they have done weaponnization research in the past. we're 99.9% shiewrp of it. we need to be able to get into the facility where's we think that happened. we need to be able to talk to your scientists who undertook that research. >> brown: if you think of this as an interrism agreement, where does it go from there? how do you get-- what is the goal and how do you get there? >> it goes towards in the end state agreement sharply constraining, sharply constraining iran's nuclear program at being very, very sure that they can't break out, that they can't get a nuclear weapon.

but, look, we are in a very strong position right now. iran is economically very, very weak. their economy contracted by 5% so6% last year. so i think we should take a good deal. we should take what we can get. we shouldn't go for everything because we're not going to get it. these guys, when you really press them, they get their backs up against the wall and they can walk away. we should not risk at this critical juncture when we have a limited, very tight space, make the mistake of going for everything and liewgz everything. that would be a huge mistake. >> i think it has to pass the pinch test, and i don't think if the press reports are true, that we have under discussion something that really passes, that we're not really setting back the program much at all, that they're maintaining the nuclear weapons infrastructure, and we're really not pushing them when we do have the stronger hand. if you have the stronger economic hand, use it. >> brown: does your gut tell you they are going to reach some kind of agreement this weekend? >> i think likely so, because i think the president, most importantly, wants to avoid a

binary choice between surrendering and having to engage in a preemptive military strike. >> brown: gloun you're agreeing. you think will happen? >> i think something will happen. i think both side want it. cliff kupchan, reul gerecht, thank you very much. >> woodruff: back in 2008, president george w. bush signed a new law guaranteeing mental health parity that required insurers to treat mental illness similar to other diseases. but it's taken five years before the latest and final regulations were released today to fully implement the law. among other things, it means the law will guarantee fewer limits on doctor visits and hospital stays. hari sreenivasan looks at the changes for patients and what happened over those five years. >> sreenivasan: for that, i'm joined now by dr. carol bernstein. she's an associate professor of psychiatry at new york university's school of medicine and past president of the american psychiatric

association. so, this law went on the books in 2008. help us understand concretely what are the changes that happened today? well, this is a very, very important day for all of us, and i think it just has taken a little bit too long to happen, i think. when these laws go into effect, if they happen, but in order for them to be enacted properly, a series of regulations have to be promulgated by the government to tell in this case the insurance industry and patients and providers exactly what this law means. so these regulations that are coming out today is the first time that the government is really setting forth exactly how the parity law is supposed to be implemented. >> sreenivasan: so what are some examples? >> so examples are-- this law is the first time on the books that it says that patients suffering from mental illnesses, as well as other medical conditions, are entitled to the same type of benefits under insurance policies as people suffering from other medical conditions. up until now, there's been a lot

of stigma against patients with mental illness, and they have been subject to a lot of limitations that patients suffering from other kind of illnesses have not been. for example, often there is a 30-day lifetime limit on in-patient psychiatric hospitalization for psychiatric illness or substance abuse or a 30-visit limit per year on how frequently you can see your mental health provider. those limitations were not in effect for other doctors pup could go see your internist as often as you want. if you got sick and needed to be in the hospital for six months you were covered but patients suffering from psychiatric illness were descriminated against. >> sreenivasan: the insurance industry in one of their statements said this has been a top priority for their industry. they've been trying to make it affordable. in the past they made the comparison that physical illness and mental illness is not apples

to apples, the cost structure is not the same. >> we can say the cost structure has not been the same and there has been a fantasy, somehow, if you open mental health services to people that the system will go bankrupt. we already know how much trouble the system is in. and in fact, if you look statistically at what goes on with the patients who are using the most of our health care dollar, they're patients who are suffering from both medical illnesses and other medical illnesses, such as psychiatric one, and if they're only getting treated for half the bargain they'll be sicker for longer and cost the system more. >> sreenivasan: is there a gam in what is covered today and what is not when it comes to private insurers allowing people to take their mental illness and go find a provider? >> to the extent you have not been able to stay in the hospital as long as you need to, or see your mental health provider as frequently as you could see your physician, yes. i mean, i don't know exactly what those dollar amounts are. but most important leiber the problem is that people aren't

getting the care that they need. they don't get the care they need, they can't work, they can't take care of their families, and there's a much greater drain on the economy. >> sreenivasan: connect the dots. what is covered under the affordable care act and what is covered under this law that has more specificity today. >> having the parity law come first was critically important because without parity, if you have the affordable care act, we would still have this disparity between coverage for psychiatric illnesses and coverage for other medical conditions. and i really want to stress the fact that psychiatric illnesses are medical conditions, just like diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, cancer, aids, all of those. but they have been considered as separate. so the parity law now will mandate the structure of the affordable care act to the extent that we-- the insurance industry and the government-- and this has been true in government programs -- will have to provide for equal types of benefits for mental illnesses and substance abuse problems as

they do for other illnesses in medicine. >> sreenivasan: so this is something people who perhaps didn't have insurance, if they went through a health care exchange-- >> yes. >> sreenivasan: these are now benefits that they are entitled to. >> yes. i don't know the wording of the exchanges and how they develop, but to the extent that the insurance companies that participate in the exchanges have more than 50-- have more than 50 people in the system or insurers that have more than 50 people in the workplace, and to the extent the mental health benefits are offered-- they have to be offered. that's one thing that's different. they must be offered in the same way access to other medical conditions are. >> sreenivasan: as we approach the one-year anniversary of the newtown tragedy, there was a conversation about mental health coverages, it was one of the recommendations the administration made. does today basically fulfill that requirement on the checklist the white house had? >> i don't know what i would say it fulfills the requirement. it's certainly an important step in the right direction.

i think it's important to remember that most patients suffering from mental ill knows are not going out and shooting people. there are issues, but there is no question that to the extent there has been lack of access, lack of good care, and stigma, that patients suffering from psychiatric disorders have not gotten access to the care that they really need to prevent tranllies like newtown or others where there might have been someone suffering from mental illness involved. >> sreenivasan: one of the criticisms i have seen from the guidelines today is that there are still vulnerable populations, in the case of change, the chp program. are there still populations that aren't going to get the service they say need even with these new rules? >> i'm sure there are, and i think that there are a lot of challenges-- and this is why the regulations are so important-- in how the plan is implemented because even up until now, even though some insurance companies have been very careful and are now applying the same deductible

structure to mental illness and substance abuse as they have to other medical conditions, they've been sort of going around, skirting around the issue of parity by doing things that we call are nonquantitative treatment limitations. what that refers to are requirements to, for example, get clearance from your insurance company before you can call your psychiatrist up. those are all ways in which populations that need access to care aren't going to get it if they don't understand that they're entitled to do that. >> sreenivasan: all right dr. carol bernstein, thank you for your time. >> thank you very much. >> woodruff: next, we welcome back an old friend, dante chinni, who was a regular contributor to the newshour during our coverage of the 2012 elections. he now heads up the american communities project, a county- by-county look at the u.s. electorate. it's based at american university. he has studied the results of

last tuesday's gubernatorial race in virginia; i spoke with him a short time ago. dante chinni, welcome back to the "newshour." >> thank you for having me. >> woodruff: so tell us about the american communities project. what is it? and what are i focusing on when you look at the american electorate? >> what we do is we're using demographics. a lot of people talk about demographics. but we're also talking about demographics in communities so different kinds of places in america, what kind of people live in those places, demographically speaking and how they vote. it gets beyond just white, black, different ethnicities or different races or income levels. we're trying to merge things together to identify the different communities so the idea different communities vote differently when election time comes. >> woodruff: a good example is the state of virginia, which you focused on, voting for governor other and offices. let's look how you divide up the state of virginia. >> when you look at virginia, virginia is made up of many different kinds of communities. as you look at that pie chart,

the pie chart shows the vote there tuesday night, some parts of virginia hold a lot more people than other parts. you look at these urban suburbs, urban suburbs, what we think of as northern virginia, mostly, the areas primarily around washington, d.c. there's also one down by richmond. african american south, large black population, military posts, obviously. there's a big military contingent in the state. a work class country. the big parents of the state are the urban burbs that sit outside d.c., and the excerpts this sit beyond that. and there's a big divide in those between liberals-- liberal voting tendencies and conservative voting tendencies. >> woodruff: so as you looked at the vote-- and you have gone back and looked at the numbers and divided in these categories -- why did terry mcauliffe win? what groups did he do well in? >> mcauliffe out of all those groups only one wun three. he won the urban suburbs. high won the african american south and college towns. but he won them by large

amounts. the urban suburbs are the biggest part of virginia in terms of population as we see it. they're also growing faster. they're not only the biggest portion of the pie when you look at that pie, their section of the pie is getting bigger and bigger and that's a huge advantage to mcauliffe. >> woodruff: and we than he won but by less than three points. >> right. >> woodruff: ken couch nel ethe republican, came closer than a lot of people expected. show us where he did well. >> cuccinelli essentially won everywhere else in the state. but he did particularly well in these places. he did well in the exushes-- again, it's the next ring out in washington, d.c., from the northern virginia sush intushes to the exurbs. you're talking about counties that border each other but the vote flips in most places from democrat to republican. that suburb-exurb line is where it flipped. it flipped on 2012 and last tuesday glid flipped from the

last governor's election. >> it flipped from democrat to (. when you look at the 2013 election compared to 2009, bob mcdonald won those places. in fact he won them pretty handily. he won in northern virginia. mcauliffe didn't just do better, he really, really overwhelmed the numbers that deets had and crushed cuccinelli there, and there are so many voters there. that is what made it happen for him. >> woodruff: as you look at this and look at the whole country, what are the lessons here for republicans and for democrats? >> well, in my opinion-- and there are going to be a lot of opinions because it wound up booing fairly close-- but when i look at these numbers what it says to me is cuccinelli, who was a social conservative and ran as a strong social creativity. he did not run from the positions he espoused for a long time, it really hurt him in these urban suburbs around washington, d.c. the pattern that we saw here on tuesday night is the same as we're seeing in other big cities

around the country. there are urban burbs around new york, around philly, detroit, chicago, denver. this pattern is popping up over and over again, and the fact that we saw them in state election, not just a presidential election, is significant. >> woodruff: so what is it about those urban burbs, urban suburbs, as you call them, that would make what cuccinelli had to say, what his campaign was all about unappeal? >> yeah, well, what's happening-- and why we call them urban suburbs is they are increasingly taking on the tendencies of the big cities next to them. they are growing more dense. they are growing better educated. they are growth wealthier, but also poorer at the same time. so the top end is growing but the bottom end is growing. they're increasingly looking like cities and as they look like cities the vote is shifting democratic and that are moderating. it's hard to be a strong conservative and win in those places. moderates win in those places. >> woodruff: any good message here for the republicans? >> the good message it's republicans held on the exurbline.

when you look at what's happened in politic politics in america e last couple of cycles, the democrats have held the cities and moved out and taken the suburbs. it's fine they held the line but them to get back in the game in national politics and a race in states like virginia, they have to push the line back in. that's the challenge for them. >> woodruff: dante chinni, and it's the americans communities project. great to you have back again. >> thank you. >> woodruff: the virginia governor's race was just one of the big political stories of the week, and shields and brooks are here to talk about all of them. that's syndicated columnist mark shields and "new york times" columnist david brooks. welcome, gentlemen. so, david, you were both listening to dante chinni. what would you add to what he said about what happened in virginia? >> first on those terms, hanging on to theex urbs was key for the republicans. it was a much closer race than we thought it would be. they lost those counties, louden counties, generally around there, and they lost some of those because a lot of

immigrants are moving out there. they held on. it was close. basically, it's not neuroscience. mcauliffe won 11% of people who opposed president obama and obamacare. he won people in the other party, partly because of cuccinelli's social positions and cuccinelli just seemed too strident. if you win, people who are in the other party-- you don't have to win a lot of them-- that's going to help you out. he hay more moderate posture. cuccinelli had a much more strident, partisan posture, and the waiverrers went to mcauliffe. >> woodruff: mark what, is your take? >> a couple of things, judy and i thought dante's piece was fascinating and revealing. first of all, the efforts to bring in president clinton and president obama paid off for terry mcauliffe on tuesday. 20% of the electorate turned out to be african-american. that's exactly the same percent annual it was in 2012. he needed that. he lost the white voters almost as decisively as the president did. the other thing sand kind of a

bookend to it, which daunt-- was talking about, terry mcauliffe lost voters who made between 30,000 and 200,000. he overwhelmingly won voters, 11% of the voters who earn less than 30,000, who are mostly minority-- mainly minority. but among voters earning over $200,000 in virginia, who are 11% of the electorate, terry mcauliffe won them 55 to 39. so it's almost a barbell. you know, in other words, you have the democratic strength is at one end, in the middle it wasn't-- it wasn't there economically. >> woodruff: is that good news then for the democrats or not? >> i-- i don't think there's a great news-- i mean, the democrats can look at it and say, look, there are five statewide offices in virginia. two united states senate seats held by democrats, governorship held by a democratic, won by a democrat, terry mcauliffe. the lieutenant governor is a democrat. the attorney general's race, the only one still to be decide,

republicans have a very narrow lead. there's a possibility they could have all five statewide offices in virginia. that would be quite a testimonial to the party. >> on that bardz bell, there are a couple of things to be said. first, there's a useful distinction to be made between professionals and managers. people who are professionals-- lawyers, teachers, doctors-- they're tending to vote more democratic. people who are managers, midlevel corporate executives are tending to vote more republicans. there are a lot of affluent democrats, especially in the inner ring suburbs in arlington and places like that making a decent amount of money and they're tending to vote democratic. the second thing to be said, is especially when you have a candidate strongly identified with social issues, politics is generally about social identity, not about economic class interest. people vote and join the party that feels like people like themselves. and for the highly educated people around washington, d.c., because of social issues bawshz of a lot of issues, they just feel democratic, whatever the economic incentives are. >> and i think you have to say, this is the highest i have ever seen voters say that abortion was an important issue.

20% of the electorate in virginia said that on tuesday. and terry mcauliffe won them overwhelmingly. so his portraying cuccinelli-- and cuccinelli's own positions-- as somebody who wanted to repeal or illegalize abortion except in the life of the mother, criminalize abortion, did work for mcauliffe. >> woodruff: let me turn you both to new jersey, david, chris christie, running reelection, republican-- ran a very different race for republican than ken cuccinelli did. >> he won a lot of people who support president obama. and so if you can to that, you're doing okay. he did it. mcauliffe did it, and he won a lot. he got a huge margin. i think key moment for christie was in hurricane sandy when he made it clear he loved the people of new jersey more than he loved his own party. and that tribal affiliation "you are my people, i'm with with you" i think it changed the trajectory of his governorship, and now he's launched off.

his victory speech was a presidential campaign speech, and meas launched off with a mission to reshape at least part of the republican party to look more like him. and so he's appearing on a lot of sunday shows this coming sunday. and he's on a mission. >> woodruff: how do you read christie? >> i don't know to whom crist sea bigger threat, the republicans in the primary or the democrats in a general. conservatives are suspicious of him for the reason that david said. i mean, you're either an ideolog or pragmatist in this business. and those conservatives who are mostly ideologues believa what is right works. a pragmatist who chris christie turned out to be most conspicuously and historically in the case of hurricane sandy, is a pragmatist who believes what works is right. and it involves working-- >> woodruff: with the president. >> working closely with the president, crediting the president for the people of new jersey under a time of-- it worked for him. but i'd say this-- after saying abortion was a big help to terry

mcauliffe, this is a man who is prolife, against same sex marriage. he carried 57% of women running against a woman democrat. he won pop% of latinos, 66% of independents, and a majority of voter betweens the ages of 25 and 29. that is terrifying to democrats right now, just looking at those numbers. those are impressive statistics. >> woodruff: but he's clearly somebody every is looking at for 2016 already. right? >> right, in part because this coming-- the last republican primary process, which we were stuck with, was miserable. it was horrible. there were no debates. it was loony toons. >> you didn't say that? >> i felt it in my heart. remember, those debates? they were loony toons. but now you've got a real argument between at least two very substantive people. you've got christie on one side,

probably rand paul or ted cruz on the other, and we'll figure out where the party is going to stand on a whole bunch of issues. >> woodruff: mark, right next door to new jersey is new york city, where a progressive-- i guess we can't use the word "liberal," but liberal democrat, bill de blasio, won the mayor's race. >> he didn't win. he rolled like nobody has rolled in that state. he beat a very respectable republican candidate, joe lhota, deputy mayor to rudy giuliani, headed the new york transit system, had the endorsement of the papers, he beat him three to one. he beat him on every single demographic group that dante could break out. it was impressive. i really do think that this was the clarrian call. there's a sense in the country that the system is rigged for the top 1%. and that the other-- the rest of the country is lagging, and

being jobbed. we've decriminalized wall street malfeasance. that if you want to pay a check and kind of get a little slap on the wrist, you can still go to dinner parties and keep your freedom. and there's a sense of income inequality and economic inequality. he tapped into it and tapped into it very big. and i think it's an emerging issue said before, in 2016. i think it may be even sooner than that. >> woodruff: is this an issue with legs, inequality? >> i agree. first of all, a real issue, maybe the biggest domestic issue. wage stagnation is a real issue. you have had the democratic intelligentia, such as it is-- that wasn't fair. i apologize. >> woodruff: that was very generous. >> whoa! a certain snipiness there. >> so you've got the writers, the academics, they've been on this issue. they, frankly, have been further to the left than even barack obama has been. you have to have policies

commensurate with the size of the problem, and the activist base has been there. there haven't been that many candidates, except maybe elizabeth warren who tapped into this. now i have a candidate who tapped into it. i think we will see a primary challenge, hillary clinton, where the a lot of ideas and donors are. there's a lot of energy there, maybe more than any other spot in american politics right now. i do think we'll see more deblasios. the one caution i would say is shall the irrational exuberance that surrounded the occupy movement, when people thought this was the big coming thing. not really. the occupy movement was not the tea party movement, not as big, not as indurg. i'm not totally confident, but i think this is where the energy is in the democratic party and we'll see a rise of economic progressivism. >> this is based on reality. i mean, it's reality based. you can't look at the 21st century of the united states and see anything but the median household income has gone down every year. i mean, so we're not talking about some fabricated grievances. this is truly reality.

it's a city, new york city, with 379,000 malarizona. i mean, this is the tale of two cities, truly. >> the only thing is the problem is real, but people have to trust government as a solution, and they're not there yet. and obamacare, frankly, isn't helping them with that. >> woodruff: speak of trusting government and obamacare, the president apologized this week, he said if he mislead somebody because their health care policy is being canceled, he feels sorry. he's asking people to forgive him. what's the significance of this, david? this is kind of unprecedented. >> they've had a series of obvious failures in the roll out and the administration has decide slight shift tenor. instead of saying there are winners and losers, we have to tolerate some losers because there are going to be some winners, more of them. they have shifted to nobody will be a loser and i think it seems they're going to try to make the people whole who have lost their self-insured plans.

but the fact is there are losers. there are going to be losers. you're taking a lot of young, healthy people and get them to subsidize poorer, sicker people. there are going to be a whole series of problems going down the road. one will be the burgeoning reality right now which is older people are signing up, older, sicker people are signing up. younger, healthier people, who you need to fund the thing, is are so far not signing up. >> woodruff: democrats are getting upset about this. a group of senators went to the white house this week. if they're not nervous, they're downright angry. >> i did not think the president's statement worked. i really didn't. it was "if i have offended anybody, i'm sorry." the president -- it's on one of the youtube realities, he's on record 39 different times saying you will not lose it. you will not have to change your doctor. and i just think that this is one where you stand up-- you cannot trifle with the most indispensable cushesy any president has, and that is his integrity and his veracity.

and i just think the president just-- this was my fault. my bad. and it will not happen again. and i am responsible. >> woodruff: we're going to leaf it there. mark shields, david brooks, thank you. >> woodruff: again, the major developments of the day. the u.s. economy added 204,000 jobs in october, far more than expected. but in a separate survey, the unemployment rate ticked up to 7.3%. wall street rallied sharply on the jobs news. the dow industrials gained nearly 170 points to reach a new record high. and secretary of state john kerry and other foreign ministers joined the iran nuclear talks in geneva. the negotiations lasted into the night and resume tomorrow. on the newshour online right now, in honor of veterans' day on monday, we're asking: how has a veteran made a difference in your life?

tell us your story and share a photo with us. details of how you can do that are on the rundown news blog. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. and a reminder about some upcoming programs from our pbs colleagues. gwen ifill is preparing for "washington week," which airs later this evening. here's a preview. >> ifill: new jobs numbers, health care apologies, what voters had to say at the polls, and the senate's gay right breakthrough. we'll take it all footer and put it back together again later tonight on "washington week." judy. >> woodruff: tomorrow's edition of pbs newshour weekend looks at a legal fight over importing prescription drugs to reduce costs by importing cheaper drugs. the legal push-back from the u.s. pharmaceutical industry. pbs "newshour" weekend with hari sreenivasan airs saturday and sunday on most pbs stations. and we'll be back right here on monday with a look at a program aimed at educating

veterans on ways to access healthcare. that's the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. have a nice weekend. thank you and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations.

>> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org